UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2023 Speech to the UK Houses of Parliament

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2023 Speech to the UK Houses of Parliament

    The speech made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, at the Houses of Parliament on 8 February 2023.

    The people of the United Kingdom and their honorable representatives!

    All the people of England and Scotland, of Wales and Northern Ireland!

    Of all the lands which have been home to brave souls since Europe came into existence!

    I have come here and stand before you on behalf of the Brave. On behalf of our warriors who are now in the trenches under enemy artillery fire. On behalf of our air gunners and every defender of the sky who protects Ukraine against enemy aircrafts and missiles. On behalf of our tank-men who fight to restore our Ukrainian border. On behalf of our conscripts who are being trained now, including here in Britain. Thank you, Britain! And who will be then deployed to the frontline – skilled, equipped and eager to win.

    On behalf of every father and every mother who are waiting for their brave sons and brave daughters back home from the war.

    Mister Speaker!

    You may well remember as roughly more than two years ago we met with you here in the Parliament. It was a great honor for me. We enjoyed tea, we talked a lot about our people, our countries, the British and Ukrainian political traditions.

    Mister Prime Minister! Rishi!

    When we had our meeting earlier today, I said to you I would tell a story in my address to the Parliament. A story about my feelings on my first visit to London as president in autumn 2020.

    The programme was packed. Royal Highnesses William and Catherine. Buckingham Palace. The aircraft carrier of the Royal Navy. Westminster. Downing Street. And, of course, the War Rooms.

    There is an armchair in the war room. The famous Churchill’s armchair. A guide smiled and offered me to sit down on the armchair from which war orders had been given. He asked me – how did I feel? And I said that I certainly felt something.

    But it is only now that I know what the feeling was. And all Ukrainians know it perfectly well, too. It is the feeling of how bravery takes-you-through the most unimaginable hardships – to finally reward you with Victory.

    Ladies and Gentlemen!

    I thank you for your bravery. Thank you very much from all of us! This applause is for you!

    London has stood with Kyiv since day one. From the first seconds and minutes of the full scale war.

    Great Britain, you extended your helping-hand when the world had not yet come to understand how to react. Boris, you got others united when it seemed absolutely impossible. Thank you!

    You all showed your grit and character back then. Strong British character.

    You didn’t compromise Ukraine. And hence you didn’t compromise your ideals. And thus you didn’t compromise the spirit of these great Islands. Thank you very much!

    Our countries knew different times. Our nations defended freedom in the Second World War. The iron curtain divided us. Our people went through crises and growth, inflation, and periods of social losses and social gains.

    It was tough but we always found strength and stamina to move ahead and achieve results.

    This is the bedrock of our and your traditions.

    Ukrainians and Brits defeated the fear of war and had the time to enjoy peace.

    No matter what we encountered on different stages of our and your formidable history, you and us and the whole mankind achieved similar result – evil lost.

    We will always come out on top of evil. This lies at the core of our – but also your – traditions.

    However, the horizon never stays clear for a while. Once the old evil is defeated, the new one is attempting to rise its head.

    Do you have a feeling that the evil will crumble once again? I can see it in your eyes now. We think the same way as you do. We know freedom will win. We know Russia will lose. We know the Victory will change the world! And this will be a change that the world has long needed.

    The United Kingdom is marching with us towards the most important victory of our lifetime. It will be a victory over the very idea of the war.

    After we win together, any aggressor – big or small – will know what awaits him if he attacks international order.

    Any aggressor who will try to push the boundaries by force. Who will inflict destruction and death on other peoples. Who will try to endure his dictatorship at the expense of other people’s blood in criminal and unprovoked wars, as the Kremlin does. Any aggressor is going to lose.

    Ladies and Gentlemen!

    We have already achieved remarkable results. And we must make every effort to turn our achievements into the foundations of the future global security architecture.

    The world needs your leadership, Britain, just as it needs Ukrainian bravery.

    When the full-scale invasion began, we, together with you and the US and other allies, formed a true coalition of friends. This is very important.

    You were among those very few who had helped before the large-scale invasion began – exactly as it will be necessary every time in the future to prevent aggression from happening.

    Your help was preventive.

    We must take these principles of preventive aid to those, who are threatened with aggression, and preventive sanctions – against those, who threaten aggression – as basic principles of the world anti-war policy.

    We created a coalition of NLAW and Javelin that stopped the advance of the Russian army from the first day of the invasion.

    We built a coalition of artillery rounds and a coalition of air defense, which allow us to save the lives of civilians, our women, children and elderly, in our cities from Russian atrocious occupation and missile terror.

    We put together a powerful sanctions coalition. Your leadership in protecting international legal order through sanctions against a terrorist state – cannot be questioned. And we have to steadily continue along this way until Russia is deprived of any possibility to finance the war.

    Most importantly, together with the G7 we brought about a coalition of values. A coalition that protects the rule-based world order and human rights.

    A coalition that will work in such a way, that over time there will simply be no gray areas in the world in which human life does not matter.

    In order for it to be so, there must be justice. Anyone who invests in terror must be held accountable. Anyone who invests in violence must compensate those who have suffered from terror, aggression or other forms of state violence.

    Our proposals for the creation of a Special Tribunal for the crime of Russian aggression against Ukraine and a Special Compensation Mechanism, which will compensate war losses at the expense of Russian assets, are based on such principles.

    Justice is one of the ten elements of the Peace Formula proposed by Ukraine and supported by Britain. I thank you for your readiness to invoke the Formula!

    As I already mentioned, Ukrainian soldiers are being trained in Britain. In particular, to operate “Challengers”, your main battle tanks. It’s a tank coalition in action, and I thank you, Rishi, for this powerful defensive step – for tank assistance.

    The coalition of long-range missiles is the latest of all. It will allow us to make the evil completely retreat from our country by destroying its hideaways deep in the occupied territories.

    And it’s not just about weapons. We proved together that the world truly helps those who are brave in defending freedom. And thus, paves the way for a new history. A history of a world that knows how to be quick in help. Who knows how to be effective in defense. Who knows how to remain principled in dark hours. Who implements its treaties and arrangements in good faith. Who does not allow perpetrators to enjoy impunity. Who knows how to overcome veto when it is abused. Who knows no fear. And who knows how to win.

    This shall be the new reality of the free world! I’m sure of that.

    However, evil is still around today and the battle continues. Yes, we know how it is going to end and how we are going to feel on the day victory comes.

    Everyday we continue to pay with lives, pain and tears for bringing the victory closer. With the lives of our heroes, whom we lose in battles. With the lives of our heroes who take life and death risks every day to save as many of our soldiers and civilians as possible.

    Today, I will have the honor to be received by His Majesty the King. It will be a truly special moment for me. In particular, because I will convey to him from all the Ukrainians the words of gratitude for the support His Majesty showed to them when he was still the Prince of Wales.

    I also intend to tell him something that is very important not only for the future of Ukraine but also for the future of Europe. In Britain, the King is an air force pilot. And in Ukraine today, every air force pilot is the king for us, for our families.

    Because they are so few, they are so precious that we, the servants of our kings, do everything possible and impossible to make the world provide us with modern planes to empower and protect pilots who will be protecting us.

    I am proud of our air force. And I brought a present from them to you, Great Britain. Open, please. I will explain. It’s the helmet of a real Ukrainian pilot. He is one of our most successful aces. He is one of our kings. And the writing on the helmet reads: “We have freedom. Give us wings to protect it.”

    I trust this symbol will help us form our next coalition – coalition of the planes.

    I appeal to you and the world with simple and yet most important words: Combat aircrafts – for Ukraine! Wings – for freedom!

    Great Britain!

    You and us both struggle for peace, but instead we are forced to face the rage that seeks to deprive us of peace and everything else that is valuable in life.

    Unfortunately, it is in human nature to allow evil mature. It then stands up against humanity. It then destroys and kills. It launches aggressions and breaks people’s lives.

    You and us have already fought together against such evil. You and us already have the experience of defeating the evil that is generated by human nature.

    I am not saying there will be no more wars after this war ends. It is impossible to completely erase evil from human nature. Yet, it is in our power to guarantee with words and deeds that the light side of human nature will prevail. The side you and us share. And this stands above anything else.

    Thank you for your attention! Thank you for your support!

    Leaving the British Parliament two years ago, I thanked you for delicious English tea. I will be leaving the parliament today thanking all of you in advance – for powerful English planes.

    By the way, it’s almost five o’clock.

    God bless Great Britain and long live the King!

    Слава Україні!

  • Mark Harper – 2023 Keynote Speech on the Future of the Railways at the George Bradshaw Address

    Mark Harper – 2023 Keynote Speech on the Future of the Railways at the George Bradshaw Address

    The speech made by Mark Harper, the Secretary of State for Transport, at the Institute for Civil Engineers in London on 7 February 2023.

    Good evening and thank you to Andy Bagnall and his team at Rail Partners for organising this event and for inviting me to deliver what is my first rail speech since becoming Transport Secretary.

    What a fantastic setting this is, surrounded by reminders of Britain’s glorious engineering history and Bradshaw in whose name we meet today (7 February 2023). Whose timetables brought order to the chaos of the Victorian network is as much a part of rail’s story as Stephenson, Brunel and others honoured throughout this building.

    I would also like to pay tribute to Adrian Shooter who sadly passed away in December. Over the past 30 years, few have played a bigger role in the growth and modernisation of the railways and I’m sure he’s missed by many a friend and colleague here today.

    I realise I’m the second Transport Secretary to give this prestigious address. And I’m pleased to see Patrick in his seat. But me and Lord McLoughlin, Patrick as we all know him, or chief as I used to call him, have a bit more in common. We both hail from working class backgrounds: my dad a labourer, his a coal miner. We both grew up in historic railway towns: Swindon in my case and Stafford in his. And we were both promoted from the whips office to running the Department for Transport. Though admittedly, he was a bit faster than me I spent an interlude on the backbenches.

    Now, 6 years may not seem like a long time but, as Andy says, during that period we’ve since left the EU, emerged from a global pandemic, had 2 general elections and my party may have had one or two changes in leadership. Yet the more things have changed outside the railways, the more they seem to have stayed the same inside.

    Patrick’s 2016 Bradshaw Address was a passionate call for a more flexible, more accountable and more joined-up railway. That still rings true today, as do the reflections of previous Bradshaw speakers. Lord Hendy’s case for a whole system railway in 2018. Keith Williams, a year later, with his relentless and right focus on passengers and even Rick Haythornthwaite’s warning at the inaugural Bradshaw Address in 2011 of a disillusioned public not trusting the way our railways are run. Those all sound eerily familiar.

    So, I’ve spent my first few months in this job listening to the experts, indeed to many people in this room, drawing on my experience in government and many years in business, to understand what’s holding back meaningful change and how we move forward.

    Modernisation

    There’s clearly a lot of frustration in the industry. There’s a widespread desire to end the sense of drift. By moving on from re-diagnosing the industry’s ills to getting on with fixing them. The government’s policy is clear. The Plan for Rail has already been announced to the House of Commons in May 2021 so delivering that policy, moving from the words to action that is my priority.

    Because the railways, quite frankly, aren’t fit for purpose. We’re mired in industrial action, which lets down passengers and freight customers down. And historically unable to deliver major improvements at good value for the taxpayer. Britain is yearning for a modern railway that meets the needs of the moment. One reliable enough to be the 7-day-a-week engine for growth businesses expect. Nimble enough for post pandemic travel, whilst allowing more flexibility for freight and efficient enough when public spending is rightly scrutinised like never before.

    The railways need fundamental reform and that is what we will deliver. And what I will try to set out this evening is how we re-energise that process. Freeing reform from the sidings and getting it back onto the mainline.

    Context

    But first, I must provide some important context. In putting an end to last year’s unwelcome political and economic turbulence this government promised to be straight with the public about the difficult choices ahead. We set out a plan to restore economic stability and that plan is working.

    We’ve seen a significant settling of the market, we’ve reassured investors, calmed the markets and strengthened the currency. It’s a strong base from which to deliver the Prime Minister’s 2023 economic priorities: halve inflation, growing the economy, and reducing debt.

    It is testament to this industry’s huge economic potential that even amidst a challenging fiscal climate we gave full backing to the £96 billion Integrated Rail Plan.

    The largest single investment ever made in our railways will take HS2 from Euston to Manchester. Northern Powerhouse Rail across the Pennines. East West Rail between Oxford and Cambridge. And that has the Chancellor’s full support.

    We’re not wasting any time. In December, I saw the huge construction effort underway at the site of Curzon St Station in Birmingham. It will be the first new intercity terminus built since the 19th century. Attracting tens of thousands of jobs and sparking housing and commercial regeneration across the city.

    Broken model

    Don’t take my word for it go and talk to Andy Street and you’ll get a very passionate case about the transformation that HS2 is bringing to his city.

    But we risk wasting that future infrastructure spending if our railway model is stuck in the past and thanks to Keith’s painstaking work, we know what the underlying issues are. A fragmented structure that quickly forgets the customer. Decision making with too little accountability, but with too much centralisation. And a private sector rightly criticised for poor performance but with too few levers to change it. An industry in “no man’s land” as Andrew Haines correctly described it in his Beesley lecture.

    And in the end it’s rail’s customers that suffer. Like on the East Coast Mainline, where passengers still await the full benefits of billions of pounds in taxpayer investment and years of infrastructure upgrades. I know this first hand. As a backbench MP, when I was trying to get a Sunday train from my constituency to London, I remember constantly refreshing the First Great Western timetable to find half the trains weren’t running. Like many passengers, I had no choice but to give up and take the car instead.

    Andrew, who was then running First Group, probably remembers my rather irate emails from the station platform, interrogating him about why the service was so unreliable. Four months into this job, I now know why. I possibly owe him an overdue apology. It wasn’t entirely his fault. Because Sunday services are essentially dependent on drivers volunteering for overtime. Which means, despite best efforts, we can’t run a reliable 7-day-a-week railway on which customers can depend. It’s why I and the Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, have been clear throughout this period of industrial action that modernising working practices must be part of reform.

    Pandemic impact

    Finally, the pandemic has made a bad problem worse, a lot worse. Thanks to hybrid working, an economic model dependent on 5-day commuting is out of date. Take season ticket sales, which are at just 28% of pre-COVID levels.

    Unsurprisingly, and you don’t need a chartered accountant like me to tell you this, the impact on the industry’s bottom line has been stark. Revenue is around £125-175 million lower each month and costs keep rising year on year.

    Any other industry would have collapsed years ago but the railways have only survived because of the taxpayer and the public purse. The source of over 70% of income over the past 2 years at a cost of £1,000 per household. I won’t mince my words: operating the railways is currently financially unsustainable and it isn’t fair to continue asking taxpayers to foot the bill. Most of them don’t regularly use the railways. Including plenty of my constituents in the Forest of Dean.

    But they find themselves subsidising an industry that delivers only 1.5% and 2% of all journeys that are taken by the public. That disproportionately serves commuters in the south-east and whose funding comes at the expense of other vital transport upgrades. At a time when sacrifices are being made across the economy we must be aware of the trade-offs when it comes to public spending and remind ourselves, as Patrick rightly said in his address, that the Department for Transport isn’t the “Department for the Railways”.

    So, we have a broken model. Unable to adapt to customer needs and financially unsustainable. Left untreated, we will drive passengers away with poor performance, that will lead to fewer services, that will drive more passengers away and so on and so on. Only major reform can break that cycle of decline and Keith’s blueprint is the right place to start. So yes, we will create a more customer focussed and joined up railway. But we want to go further, I want to go further, and actually enhance the role of the private sector. Not just in running services but in maximising competition, innovation, and revenue growth right across the industry. Which the benefits of the private sector has delivered time and again.

    Customers

    Let me start, however, with customers. To raise revenue, we must instil a customer first culture. That means reliable services, comfortable journeys and accessible stations. But it also means tackling the issue which tops passenger lists of biggest concerns, which is fares and ticketing. With 55 million fares available how can anyone feel confident they’re getting the best value for money? Ticketing should be hassle free, something you barely have to think about. Which is why, today, I can confirm the extension of Pay-As-You-Go ticketing, with 52 stations across the south-east set to be completed this year including on Chiltern, London Northwestern, and C2C services.

    Ticket prices should also be fairer but often there is little difference between the cost of a single or a return. Operators are often unable to significantly reduce prices on quieter services. So, after LNER’s successful single leg pricing trial we’ll extend it to other parts of the LNER network from the spring and then carefully consider the results of those before extending more widely. It means a flexible single fare will always be half the cost of the equivalent return – giving passengers more flexibility and better value. This is not about increasing fares, I want passengers to benefit from simpler ticketing that meets their needs.

    We’re also going to learn from the aviation sector and better manage capacity as well as raise revenue by trialling demand-based pricing on some LNER services too.

    Yet, passengers aren’t the industry’s only customers. Carrying tens of billions of pounds worth of goods we cannot overstate rail freight’s untapped potential for green growth. So I intend to create a duty to ensure the new industry structure realises that potential with a dedicated Strategic Freight Unit tasked with creating better safeguards, more national coordination and, later this year, listening to what was said earlier, setting a long-term freight growth target.

    Structure

    However, turning towards customers requires us to turn away from the current industry structure. So, we will establish Great British Railways, or GBR. As we prepare for that, we’ll pick up the pace of reform. I am pleased to announce that the winner of the GBR HQ competition will be revealed before Easter. And by the summer, we will respond to the consultation on GBR’s legislative powers.

    The industry has long called for a guiding mind to coordinate the network so GBR will be responsible for track and train, as well as revenue and cost. Which means finally treating the railway as the whole system it should be rather than a web of disparate interests that it’s become. Passengers won’t longer face the excuse-making and blame-shifting of years past. Instead, GBR will be wholeheartedly customer-focussed. Serving as the single point of accountability for the performance of the railway and crucially, following ministerial direction, the GBR Transition Team will develop the guiding long-term strategy for rail which we will publish later this year and I hope will provide strategic direction to the sector.

    Yet there remains a lot of misinformation about GBR. So let me tackle some of these myths head on.

    This is not going to be Network Rail 2.0, nor a return to British Rail. Taking politics out of the railways is the only way to build a truly commercially led industry and, for me, that is non-negotiable. That’s why GBR will be an arm’s length body ensuring a balanced approach to both infrastructure and operations. With both sides getting a seat at the table and both sides delivering an efficient, high performing railway for customers.

    The role of ministers is to provide strategic direction and be accountable to Parliament. It is not the role of ministers to pore over operational decisions. For example, I shouldn’t need to approve whether a passenger train ought to be removed from the timetable to allow a freight train to run instead, as I was doing earlier today. That will be left to industry experts in 5 regional GBR divisions working in partnership with regional bodies such as the Greater Manchester and the West Midlands Combined Authorities.

    Similarly, we can’t take the other extreme view. Public oversight of our critical infrastructure is needed. Especially to support those passenger services that don’t turn a profit, yet still play an important economic and social role. That’s why we need a pragmatic partnership between state and industry, harnessing the necessary oversight of the state. With the dynamism, innovation and efficiency of the private sector.

    This integrated model works, and not just with the railways. That was how we achieved one of the quickest and most successful COVID vaccine rollouts in the world, and its what we need to do in the railways.

    Private sector offer

    Which brings me to the final area of reform. To enhance the role of the private sector, which I see as central to the future of the railways. Under privatisation and thanks to a resilient and world class supply chain, passenger numbers doubled to 1.75 billion by the eve of the pandemic. With private sector investment in rolling stock reached nearly £7 billion over the past 10 years.

    I don’t want to turn my back on that commercial expertise. The National Rail Contracts and current overcentralised approach are temporary, a short-term fix that has helped steer the industry through the pandemic and this will be phased out.

    I want the private sector to play its most important role in our railways yet. To reinvigorate the sector, drive innovation and most importantly, attract more customers to the railway. It will do so in partnership with GBR. GBR will help set the right commercial conditions across several key areas.

    There will be new Passenger Service Contracts that will balance the right performance incentives with simple, commercially driven targets. But they won’t be a one-size fits all approach. In the past, we know some operators took on more financial risk than they could handle. So, now that risk will sit where it is best managed and that includes with operators, but only where it drives the best outcomes for passengers and taxpayers. We shouldn’t be afraid to let managing directors of train operating companies actually manage and direct their operations. Which is not what they’re able to do at the moment.

    We’ll also open up railway data and systems, whilst lowering barriers to entry for the industry. For ticketing, that means a more competitive retail market and I will welcome new players to spur more innovation and give passengers the services they need.

    We will expand commercial opportunities around land and property near stations. In Japan, rail companies take full advantage of these investments, generating even more income for the railways and we should look to do the same.

    And finally, we will support more open access services where it benefits passengers and taxpayers. We’ve seen this work well with Hull Trains and Grand Central as well as with Lumo on the East Coast Mainline. All offering passengers greater choice and more direct links. Open access operators will play an important role in the industry’s future, especially as we grow new markets and make best use of spare capacity on the network.

    Conclusion

    Let me finish by saying that despite being the second Transport Secretary to deliver this address I’m probably the first to be given a biblical nickname. Modern Railways Magazine described the rail industry as waiting for “Moses Harper to come back from the mountain with tablets of stone.” Whilst I’m, of course, flattered by that comparison, unlike Moses, I do plan to live long enough to reach the promised land of rail reform. And whilst my words this evening have not been divinely inspired they do have the full support of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, which, in politics, is the next best thing.

    As a whole government, we are pressing ‘go’ on rail reform. Day-to-day work will be ably led by the Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, who’s here tonight and has long championed the need for a reformed railway, including when he was chairman of the Transport Select Committee. He will provide the stability and leadership needed, while also giving the industry freedom to deliver meaningful change and I hope you will all rise to the challenge:

    • to put customers first
    • to realise the benefits of GBR
    • to help enhance the role of the private sector

    Because only then can the railway earn the public trust it needs to grow.

    As we look ahead to the industry’s 200-year anniversary in 2025, this is our chance to resurrect some national pride in our railways. A chance to harness the political will that is there, the economic imperative and I believe the industry buy-in to build the modern railway Britain deserves.

    It’s a chance we cannot waste.

  • Victoria Prentis – 2023 Statement on the Prosecution Fee Increase

    Victoria Prentis – 2023 Statement on the Prosecution Fee Increase

    The statement made by Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, on 7 February 2023.

    Parity of fees paid to prosecution and defence barristers ensures fair representation on both sides of criminal cases.

    Like many, I have been concerned to hear reports that on occasion, the CPS has struggled to recruit suitably experienced staff to prosecute complex cases, especially those involving rape and serious sexual offences. Ensuring that victims’ voices are heard requires prosecutors, delivering a core part of this Government’s commitment to breaking down barriers to justice.

    That is why it is welcome news the Treasury will provide the Crown Prosecution Service with the additional funding it needs to increase prosecution fees in line with those agreed for defence legal aid fees last year.

    This is an issue that I have championed alongside the Bar Council and CPS, and it is an outcome that reflects the importance of a well-functioning justice system.

  • Greg Hands – 2005 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Greg Hands – 2005 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    The maiden speech made by Greg Hands, the then Conservative MP for Hammersmith and Fulham, in the House of Commons on 26 May 2005.

    I want to speak about the threat to our local hospital in Hammersmith and Fulham: the Charing Cross. First, however, I congratulate my hon. Friends who have made their maiden speeches during this debate: my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). I am also known as something of a polyglot, so I shall try to offer my congratulations to the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) and for Taunton (Jeremy Browne).

    I want to say a few words about my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Hammersmith and Fulham, Iain Coleman. It would be fair to say that Mr. Coleman made most of his impact in the constituency. In fact, his surgeries became something of a legend locally as he seemed to spend his entire time in an almost perpetual surgery at all times and for all hours—except during Arsenal games. Mr. Coleman has not been well for a year and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in wishing him a full recovery and a return to politics as soon as possible. His predecessor as MP for the Fulham part of the constituency was Matthew Carrington, who was a popular, respected and effective MP for 10 years. He was enormously supportive and helpful in my efforts to win back the seat on 5 May.

    It was rather more difficult to find out about the previous Conservative MP for Hammersmith, as distinct from Fulham, because I am the first Conservative MP for Hammersmith since 1964. Probably the most famous previous Hammersmith MP was one William Bull. Mr. Bull represented the area for 37 years between 1892 and 1929. He had the unusual and tragic misfortune to lose his wife to pneumonia after she had been out canvassing for him. For someone who died of pneumonia, Mrs. Bull is ironically commemorated with a sundial in Ravenscourt park in my constituency.

    Mr. Bull won his first election by only 19 votes. While he was an MP he became a senior partner of his law firm. That is an impressive sounding achievement, until one discovers that the firm was called Bull and Bull. He was a man ahead of his time as he was in favour of votes for women and the Channel tunnel, although these days I expect that the latter is more controversial than the former. Most bizarrely, my predecessor was ordered out of the House by Mr. Speaker’s predecessor for calling the then Prime Minister a traitor—which these days is perhaps more in tune with east London than west London politics.

    In truth, the constituency of Hammersmith and Fulham is more famous for its elections than its MPs. I cite the East Fulham by-election of 1933, the battles of Barons Court of the 1960s and the Fulham by-election of 1986. All those have the common characteristic of being won by the Labour party. However, I believe that one of the most significant Hammersmith and Fulham election results was the one just a couple of weeks ago on 5 May. The recorded swing of almost 7.5 per cent. was one of the highest in the UK. The seat was the Conservatives’ No. 1 inner-city target, and a new 5,000 majority has been created. Together with the impressive results achieved in London by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), for Putney (Justine Greening), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), my result shows that we as a party are making great progress in London again.

    The Labour party barely got started in the campaign. It was barely seen, barely heard and had little positive to say about its eight years in government. Meanwhile, the Lib Dems ran a candidate from Tunbridge Wells under the slogan, “Give Peace a Chance.” Perhaps they were more the surreal alternative.

    Hammersmith and Fulham is one of the smallest constituencies in Britain, but it is none the less one of the most diverse. It is also one of the closest to Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned, it is quite possible to get back to Hammersmith and Fulham from the House at the end of each evening. In fact, I am probably one of the few Members with a direct door-to-door bus route from just outside Big Ben to just outside his house. That sounds fantastic, until one considers that given traffic in London, it can take up to two hours to complete the journey.

    Prior to 5 May, some newspapers made great play of the fact that no premiership football ground was located in a Conservative seat. Some claimed that that showed that the Conservative party was not represented in the inner cities. All that has now changed, for I represent a constituency in which not just one, but two premiership clubs are located: Fulham and Chelsea. Notwithstanding the heroic events in Istanbul last night, I was delighted to see the streets of my constituency decked out in blue last Sunday to welcome their new champion. I refer of course to Chelsea football club, but “blue is the colour” is surely the future there politically as well, even if I say that as a Fulham fan.

    Hammersmith and Fulham is also distinctive for having more tube users than any other borough in Britain and the greatest number of single women compared with single men in the United Kingdom. It is also the home of the Olympia exhibition centre and part of Earls Court. Its largest employer is the BBC, and it is the home of what is reputed to be Europe’s busiest road interchange at Hammersmith Broadway. It is also the London home to dozens of hon. Members, which can make canvassing in certain streets straightforward. Many hon. Members from both major parties have cut their teeth in local Hammersmith and Fulham politics.

    The election in Hammersmith and Fulham was all about the dreaded congestion charge extension, the fact that eight out of nine muggers in my constituency go unpunished, the fact that a quarter of the borough’s secondary schools are on special measures, the appalling state of the District line and high council tax.

    Perhaps the greatest concern, however, and why I wanted to speak in the debate, is the threat to the Charing Cross hospital. On the very day that the election was supposed to be called—a good day to bury bad news, one might say—on 4 April 2005, an announcement was made at a meeting with the chief executive of the NHS hospitals trust that the world famous Charing Cross hospital would either be demolished or possibly have its specialised services moved to the Hammersmith hospital on the Wormwood Scrubs site. That would be a crazy move, and it is one that I have been elected in part to prevent.

    Charing Cross is a marvellous facility—the centrepiece of a three star-rated hospital trust. It is a global leader in cancer care, vascular surgery, neurosurgery, plastic surgery and much else. It is the trauma centre for the whole of west London and is ideally situated just off the A4 for any major incident at Heathrow. Most of all, it is also a local hospital, serving the needs not only of Hammersmith and Fulham, but of other parts of west London, and is easily accessible by tube, bus or car, which Hammersmith hospital is not.

    The proposal suits nobody other than the management of the trust, who are in turn driven only by meeting Government targets, which have led to huge deficits in both the local primary care trust and the hospitals trust. In classic new Labour fashion, spin doctors were deployed to deny the initial press reports in The Observer that the Charing Cross site would be sold off. Interestingly, however, there was no denial of the plans to move all or most of the specialised services to the Hammersmith site. I expect that more will be heard on the topic in the House, and I look forward to winning the battle with the Government to leave Charing Cross services on their current site.

    In conclusion, many people have asked me and others why the Conservatives did so well in Hammersmith and Fulham and elsewhere in London. The answer is that people in London are overtaxed and face declining public services. I predict major changes in the control of London boroughs in next May’s election.

    I am delighted to become the first Conservative MP for Hammersmith since 1964 and the first-ever Conservative MP for the combined seat of Hammersmith and Fulham.

  • Dehenna Davison – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    Dehenna Davison – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    The speech made by Dehenna Davison, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Robertson. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for securing this important debate, and for the constructive way in which she has engaged with the Department and I on the UK shared prosperity fund. I know that she is and has long been a committed champion for the many voluntary groups, businesses and communities in her constituency that have previously benefited from, if not relied heavily on, EU funding. She has been a keen advocate to ensure that that support continues under the UK shared prosperity fund.

    The hon. Member mentioned the NOW Group, and I am pleased that she did. As she knows, the NOW Group has been in receipt of ESF funding, and has also recently accessed the community renewal fund as well. We have worked with Maeve Monaghan, the CEO of the NOW Group, to help to design the UK shared prosperity fund planning as part of that partnership group. Hopefully her feedback there has definitely been helpful, and she feels that it has been taken on board as we have designed the programme.

    In my response, I hope I will be able to provide some clarity on the next steps regarding the roll-out of the UKSPF in Northern Ireland; the steps we have taken so far to engage charities and community groups currently in receipt of Government support; and the progress we are making in our ambition to level up communities in Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom. I will make reference to the levelling-up fund and address as many of the questions she raised as I can. I am not sure my hand was working fast enough to write them all down, but if I have missed any I will follow up in writing following the debate.

    As hon. Members will know, we published the prospectus for the UK shared prosperity fund back in April last year. It sets out how the fund and its £2.6 billion of funding will work on the ground. Effectively, it will replace the European regional development fund and the European social fund with a simpler, smoother and less bureaucratic approach to supporting communities right across the UK. We all know that bureaucracy is something that community groups have raised with us, so as a Government we have very much taken that on board.

    In that sense, it is fair to say that the UKSPF is a central pillar of the Government’s levelling-up agenda and our ambition to bring transformative investment to places that have gone overlooked by successive Administrations for too long. We want to use the funding to support people in skills, helping the unemployed move into high-skilled, high-wage jobs—I know that is something specifically mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast South in her speech. We also want to use the funding to help the growth of local business and invest in communities and places to help to build pride in place. We know that having pride in the place that someone lives and has grown up in is a crucial part of the wider levelling-up agenda.

    For Northern Ireland, that means £126.8 million of new funding for local investment and local priorities up to March 2025. Crucially, that fulfils the promise we made that the UKSPF would match the funding allocated to Northern Ireland through EU structural funds.

    I know we have set out how the approach will work in some detail already, both in the prospectus and previous spending rounds, but I will quickly recap it for everyone here. The UK shared prosperity fund is set to ramp up over the coming years, so that total domestic UK-wide funding of the ERDF, ESF and UKSPF will at least match receipts from EU structural funds. It will reach £1.5 billion per year across the UK in 2024-25, when Northern Ireland will receive £74 million. It is important to note that before that date, when ERDF and ESF funding is still being delivered—albeit in smaller amounts—the UK shared prosperity fund tapers in for Northern Ireland and in England, Scotland and Wales too.

    I need to put on the record that the Government fully recognise the need for the funding to be properly tailored to the projects and organisations that add real economic and social value in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast South mentioned some of the projects in her own constituency, and I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for talking about how one of those organisations, the NOW Group, has helped his own constituents. We all know that a good, local charitable organisation can do wonders for our communities, and that is specifically why we are so keen to support them through this funding.

    To ensure that we tailored the funding appropriately, we ran a comprehensive programme of workshops and engagement with Northern Ireland partners last year. That included businesses, voluntary and community groups and councils, so that we could collect the widest possible views on the priorities for the fund and how it could best work in concert with other opportunities in Northern Ireland. We also established a partnership group comprised of all the organisations I just mentioned, along with the higher education sector and the Northern Ireland Office, to advise us on how the fund could be best utilised. We have built further on that engagement since then.

    Throughout the process, we have offered the Northern Ireland Departments the opportunity to formally participate in shaping the fund, but, sadly, that has not proven possible.

    Claire Hanna

    Does the Minister know why that has not proven possible? It is because under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is essentially the constitution of Northern Ireland, the Department is not equality-screened—unlike the Northern Ireland Office and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It is not able to legally operate and to run equality impact assessments, which are the law in Northern Ireland. That problem was telegraphed, but the Department has not taken adequate steps to address it. That is why those Departments have not been able to be involved.

    Dehenna Davison

    I will follow up in writing on that point. Having spoken to Sue Gray, one of our super officials, who has been outstanding in her engagement, I know how closely officials have been working with the Northern Ireland Finance, Economy and Communities Departments, maintaining regular contact as our plan has developed. That engagement continues.

    Where have we got to? Drawing on insights from the partnership group, and from wider engagement, we published an investment plan just before Christmas last year. That sets out how Northern Ireland’s allocation will be spent and the impact we expect it to have. It supports the leading needs and opportunities in Northern Ireland, addressing high levels of economic inactivity, promoting entrepreneurship and innovation and strengthening pride in place. I am pleased to say that the plan has been given the seal of approval by our partners on the ground and is now being implemented.

    Our first competition, for £42 million, which is roughly a third of the total UK SPF allocation, is focused on helping more economically inactive people into work. Many MPs, Assembly Members and other stakeholders have rightly made the case for prioritising this funding and the voluntary and community organisations that deliver it. I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast South welcomes this provision and the benefits it will bring not just to the organisations that receive it and the individuals they will help, but to Northern Ireland’s wider economy.

    We are also working with councils in Northern Ireland to bring forward early communities and place projects, as well as a joined-up service for entrepreneurs seeking to start a business and create jobs. Pending further discussion with the Northern Ireland civil service, we may also commission Northern Ireland Executive Departments, or their arm’s length bodies, in the design and delivery of the fund. I am sure hon. Members will join me in encouraging their fullest involvement.

    Part of this work is about ensuring that we mitigate issues for organisations as the European programmes we have discussed draw to a close. That issue has been raised with me by organisations not just in Northern Ireland but all around the UK; it is something that our Department and Ministers in other Departments have been incredibly focused on. With that in mind, we have been able to reprofile the SPF by moving funding from 2022-23 to 2023-24, so that it betters reflects funding needs. I know that this is an issue that my predecessors were asked to consider by many partners in Northern Ireland, and I am pleased we have been able make real progress in this area. It demonstrates something crucial, which is that SPF is not a fixed fund; it can and should flex to meet the evolving needs of the people of Northern Ireland—and it has been designed to do so.

    It goes without saying that we will continue to engage with partners, including the Northern Ireland Departments and hon. Members on both sides of this House, on the design and operation of the fund, so that it delivers for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland and throughout the Union.

    If we take a step back from the UK SPF to talk about other funding, which the hon. Member for Belfast South did with regards to the levelling-up fund, Members will know that Northern Ireland Departments have always provided funding alongside the European regional development fund and the European social fund. While we recognise the challenging budget circumstances Northern Ireland faces, the funding provided by UK SPF is only ever part of the answer. It is right that the Northern Ireland Departments continue to invest in provision that they have previously supported; that is something I think all of us would encourage.

    The Government also want to play their part, making sure we are contributing towards building a brighter Northern Ireland. That is why, alongside the UK shared prosperity fund, we have used a wide range of other funds to spur growth, regeneration and investment. Those include: the community renewal fund, which backs 30 locally led, innovative projects to the value of £12 million, and the community ownership fund, which has so far supported six local communities in Northern Ireland to take ownership of assets at risk of loss, with a spend of £1.3 million. There are other important schemes and investments, such as £617 million for city and growth deals covering every part of Northern Ireland, and our new deal for Northern Ireland providing £400 million to help boost economic growth, invest in infrastructure and increase competitiveness. We are also investing £730 million into the Peace Plus programme, ensuring a total budget of almost £1 billion—the biggest peace programme to date. Through that package of investment, we will achieve significant, visible and tangible improvements to the places where people work and live.

    Jim Shannon

    The Minister mentioned £400 million. I do not expect an answer today—it might not be possible—but how much of the new deal money has been used or set aside?

    Dehenna Davison

    I do not have an answer to hand, but I will commit to follow that up and provide that information.

    I will touch on the levelling-up fund, because we do not have much time left. Questions were raised about the shortlist, rankings and considerations. Much of the information around the considerations has been set out in the technical note that has been published. That will provide some information, and I am happy to provide a link.

    The hon. Member for Belfast South asked about consistent application. Ministers were keen to ensure there was consistent application of the decision-making framework to ensure that they were not cherry-picking the winners. It was designed to reflect the scores and value of the projects that were selected. She also asked whether the decision was made by me alone, as a Minister. She knows that the fund is a joint fund across multiple Departments, ergo that was not the case. Various Departments are involved in the decision-making process.

    The hon. Lady asked about round 3 of the levelling-up fund. We have indeed committed to a round 3, but I am not yet able to provide more details about that fund, because the conversations are ongoing and decisions are yet to be made. However, as soon as we have made the decisions and announced how round 3 will work, I will share that information with her.

    I want to conclude by saying a huge thank you to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I hope this is the start of more constructive engagement between us as we both fight for what is best for the people of Northern Ireland.

    Claire Hanna

    I have been kept right on the Standing Orders, but I thought I would get back in. I appreciate the Minister’s approach and her enthusiasm. As I said, I do not doubt that the projects and other things that are being funded are laudable, but they are not additional to what we had. They are less than what we had, which was less again than what we needed. They are not equality-screened in Northern Ireland’s traditional way, so people do not have confidence in that regard. Ultimately, the fundamental question is: who decides, and on what basis? Frankly, I am none the wiser after this discussion, and that is what is concerning people.

    Even if the shortlisting is not published, we all know the 10 projects that got the results. However, there are concerns that the published criteria were not applied in a very direct way overall, as the Minister will be aware. I know these things are not always straightforward, but the metrics are clear—they are in the public domain. I am sure most Members have poked around in the Bloomberg data about different constituencies and how they are performing relative to 2019 and relative to one another, and that will show that, in most cases, Northern Ireland constituencies continue to fall behind, including those that did not receive any levelling-up funding, while constituencies that were ahead are staying ahead. I am none the wiser, and I hope we can have a follow-up meeting, but it is not just a case of me being satisfied about transparency; it is also about those who have applied and invested hours and thousands of pounds in producing good applications. We are no more confident that detached Ministers’ have not decided.

    Dehenna Davison

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I should have said that, as part of my package on the levelling-up fund, full written feedback will be provided to all applicants, which I hope will provide some guidance on where bids perhaps fell short. There is also the option of follow-up meetings with officials from my Department to go through that in more detail, which I hope will satisfy some of the concerns around the scoring.

    I will quickly wrap up now. Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her commitment to helping to improve the prosperity of not only her constituents but the whole of Northern Ireland. As the Minister for Levelling Up, I am committed to that. If all parts of the UK are not firing on all cylinders, the UK as a whole is suffering. Ultimately, we need to make sure that every region and every community is levelled up and can benefit from the maximum opportunities and value of that community for the sake of our entire nation.

  • Claire Hanna – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    Claire Hanna – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    The speech made by Claire Hanna, the SDLP MP for Belfast South, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered replacement of funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland.

    I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this issue and, I hope, get clarity for a number of third sector partners and other groups in Northern Ireland and, potentially, areas of opportunity for them. It feels like a very long time ago, but during the EU referendum campaign there were assurances that Northern Ireland would not lose out, doing well, as we did, out of the EU funds, which were based on need. We know that the phrase “take back control” resonated with many people, but it appears to mean taking back control from some of the funds that have traditionally underpinned progress in Northern Ireland and from local decision makers, and handing it directly to London, without any sense of a strategy that local groups can try to support.

    In March last year, in the early stages of the community renewal fund, I had a Westminster Hall debate, in which various eyebrow-raising allocations from that scheme were addressed. I am afraid that several of the reservations that people had about process, strategy, co-ordination and transparency have been borne out. It is worth saying that these concerns are not held just by groups that are applying for funding or by my party. The Northern Ireland Executive, as was, adopted the position that the best delivery mechanism for the shared prosperity fund would be via existing structures. Invest Northern Ireland, our economy arm, was very clear that it believed that the funding would be best delivered in conjunction with the programme for government. And the think-tank Pivotal and other respected commentators and business voices made the same point. People are up for change. They understand that it is a reality, and they roll with the punches. But it has to feel transparent, and there has to be a sense of fairness and coherence and that there is more to these allocations than just the whim of Ministers in London.

    As I said, Northern Ireland was a net beneficiary in the EU. That is not a secret and is not anything to be ashamed of. Those allocations were made on the basis of need and, in many cases, were a counterweight to the obvious challenges that Northern Ireland faced and to decades of capital underinvestment. That is not just a historical issue: in 2021, the average capital spend per head in Northern Ireland was £1,325, compared with a UK average of £1,407. Of course, all that has contributed to a failure to attract quality investment and foreign direct investment, and decent jobs. That is reflected in our rates of economically inactive people, which are substantially higher than those in other regions.

    The founder of our party, John Hume, said many times that the best peace process is a job: the best way to enable people to have hope in their futures and see beyond the things that have divided us in our region is to have meaningful employment—a reason to stay, to get up in the morning and to work together. Those were the opportunities that we saw in European participation, and that is why we continue to work so hard to protect our access to political and economic structures. Funds beyond the block grant, the EU funding as was and the promised successor funds, have been billed and are needed as additional, and they should be an opportunity to realise some of those ambitions, to remove barriers to employment and, in particular at the moment, to allow people to take advantage of the opportunities that the current very tight labour market offers. Unfortunately, that is not what we are getting.

    Time is obviously short, so I want to focus on the loss of the European social fund and the European regional development fund and on the replacement, the SPF, and to touch on the levelling-up fund. It is worth clarifying that, as well as those assurances back in 2016, during the referendum campaign, the Conservative party manifesto in 2019 committed to replacing the ESF in its entirety. Northern Ireland got an average of £65 million a year from the ESF and ERDF in the period from 2014 to 2020, with Northern Ireland Departments having the power to manage that in line with UK strategy. That allowed them to align projects that they funded with regional and local strategies, ensuring complementarity and targeted outcomes.

    The scenario now is that the UK Government and Northern Ireland Departments are essentially two players on the same pitch, in the same space, delivering the same sorts of projects. That has a built-in inefficiency and means that the results are less than the sum of the parts. That overlapping inevitably applies to monitoring, too. How are we supposed to measure the impact of different interventions in areas like skills if the scheme is only one part of an equation in which all the other Departments are trying to do similar things? It seems that it will be impossible to disaggregate that. The governance is sub-par and the quantum is less, too.

    By comparison with the ESF and the ERDF averages, the allocation for the shared prosperity fund in Northern Ireland is £127 million over three years, so we are losing on average £23 million per year from that scheme. That has created this massive gap for funded groups, many of whom just cannot hold on. It is not like in the civil service; people have to be put on protected notice or face closure. Again, there is nothing co-ordinated about any of this. It is not even the survival of the fittest—that the strongest and best organisations will continue—because it is largely the luck of the draw on where organisations are in their funding cycle. Again, this is one more downside of the abandonment of devolution. Engaged and responsive local Ministers could monitor the situation and be flexible and creative with in-year allocation, match funding and bridge funding. They could, in short, protect us from the deficit created by Brexit and this devolution override.

    I want to touch on how all this affects specific groups. The NOW Group is a highly regarded project that works across Belfast and further afield, supporting people who are economically inactive because of a disability get into employment. It has 17 years of ESF funding and runs high-profile facilities. If anyone has been in the café in Belfast City Hall, they will have seen NOW Group workers. They help hundreds of people with disabilities into all sorts of sectors, including leading corporates and the knowledge sector. It is a safe bet that any credible funder will keep backing a project like this, but the assurances are just not there. Reserves cannot last forever and, of course, smaller organisations will not have such reserves. In that project, 52 people are at risk of being put on notice and another 800 people with disabilities will be left with no service.

    Mencap in south Belfast and far beyond has run ESF projects on social inclusion for decades and was well on track to exceed the target set by ESF of supporting 13,000 people by 2023. It is concerned by how limited the scope of SPF is compared to what they were able to do under ESF. The East Belfast Mission described well what is at stake:

    “Our programmes have a long track record of being more successful than government initiatives”.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate forward. I work with the East Belfast Mission regularly in my office, so I understand its work and its success rate from the people it helps in my constituency. The mission tells me, as I told the hon. Lady, that without this funding stream it will not be able to continue to have the success stories it has and that that will hurt individuals and families. Like the hon. Lady, I look to the Minister for some assurance that the funding it has received over the past few years can be continued. With that, we can help more of our people over the long term.

    Claire Hanna

    The mission itself captured that. It talks about its staff being based in local communities with lived experience that helps them understand the specific difficulties people face. It says:

    “Many of the people we work with have faced societal and generational barriers to employment, through illness, trauma or other issues. Our projects help break the cycle and raise up our host communities.”

    It says that if it loses the fund, it will not be able to provide certainty and will

    “lose irreplaceable experience which has been built up over decades.”

    This is not just a Belfast issue by any stretch of the imagination. Dozens of projects across Northern Ireland, particularly those supporting younger people, women and minorities, are at risk. First Steps Women’s Centre is a vital part of the community sector in Mid Ulster, working to integrate new and minority ethnic communities, providing crèche facilities to support women back into work and signposting people to other partners who can help them with the multitude of issues they may face.

    I want to specifically ask the Minister how the Department ensures that the projects it is funding are aligned with Northern Ireland’s democratically agreed priorities—agreed by the Executive with all five parties—absent a formal role for those Departments. How do the Government propose that groups, such as those I have described, that are facing this essentially bureaucratic gap are supposed to address it? If the gap is not going to be addressed, what are the people who use those services supposed to do instead?

    I want to address the widespread concerns about the levelling-up fund. It is a mighty slogan—who does not want to see things levelled up?—but unfortunately, like a lot of slogans of the last few years, it struggles a bit when it comes into contact with implementation. People perceive it as pitting communities against one another, with distant Ministers picking winners seemingly at random. Again, the initiative started badly for us. The initial allocations fell short of the promised 3% of the UK pot. That target was laid out in the strategy document, which seemed to acknowledge the traditional capital shortfall in Northern Ireland but has failed to address it. The fund was initially conceived as a scheme for England with a Barnett consequential, but it has evolved to be more centralised than was promised.

    The same paper highlighted the issues that there would be given the fact that local governance structures in Northern Ireland are different from those in Britain, but it has failed to develop a more collaborative approach to mitigate those issues. The same overlap and duplication issues with the SPF pertain here, despite requests from me and others to consider the north-south dimension and co-ordination on this issue. That misses real opportunity to maximise value by co-ordinating with the Irish Government, who have, for example, a £400 million capital fund in the Shared Island unit.

    Lessons from the first round of levelling up, which were very well telegraphed, do not appear to have been taken on board for round two. Although the projects that got the nod last week are no doubt good news for the relevant communities, nobody has any clue about what the winning ingredients in those bids were, or how others might have similar success in future applications. We are advised that the Northern Ireland bids were assessed against three of the four criteria set out in the prospectus, namely strategic fit to the economic case and deliverability.

    The winning bids are in the public domain, but the other applicants are not. In the interests of transparency, reassurance and learning for future schemes, will the Minister therefore share details of the original Northern Ireland shortlist of projects and their ranking, as presented after the assessors’ moderation meeting? Will she also advise what, if any, additional considerations informed the Minister’s decision? Can she clarify whether the funding decisions were taken by the Minister alone? It has been suggested by some applicants—I have struggled to confirm this—that the gateway pass mark that was used in England, Scotland and Wales was 75%, and that that was dropped, after applications were submitted, to 57%. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that is the case.

    Jim Shannon

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In my constituency of Strangford, an application was put in for the Whitespots park, an environmental scheme at Conlig. It is shovel ready—the boys could start it tomorrow —but we have missed out on two occasions. She is expressing her concerns over what is happening in her constituency; I echo those and support her in what she says.

    Claire Hanna

    That again illustrates the confusion that people have about what was selected. Will the Minister confirm whether any criteria additional to those specified were applied? Were they applied consistently to all projects? Will the transparent list that she will publish include any changes in ranking that occurred as a result of new criteria?

    Again—for future learning—it was announced that there will be a round three of levelling-up funding. An enormous amount of work goes into the applications, including, as people will know, many thousands of pounds on proposals and engaging the strategy board. Will the Department therefore develop a reserve list from round two applications? That could prevent some groups from having to run up the same professional fees and pouring in the same time, particularly when they are being left in the dark about the criteria. Further, can the Minister clarify what consultation was held with the Northern Ireland Departments and other funding bodies to address the overlap in applications under levelling up and other schemes? Finally, does the Minister think that the spread of applications in Northern Ireland is appropriate?

    A lot of these issues are very technical, but they are vital to achieving the things that we all want to achieve for Northern Ireland and for progress. They are also vital to people having some faith in this progress—that they have not had their eye wiped, essentially, by funds being promised, removed and not adequately replaced. That is not the case at the moment. People see this as a net loss from what we enjoyed before Brexit, and that should concern the Department.

  • Mark Spencer – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    Mark Spencer – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    The speech made by Mark Spencer, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing this debate, and I welcome the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) to her first Westminster Hall debate. I also thank all Members who have made a contribution today.

    The decision to grant the emergency authorisation has not been taken lightly and is based on robust assessment of the environmental and economic risks and benefits. Emerging sugar beet seedlings and young plants are vulnerable to feeding by aphids. Those transmit several viruses, known collectively as virus yellows, which lead to reduced beet size, lower sugar content and higher impurities. Overall sugar beet yield can be reduced by up to 50% by the viruses.

    We withdrew authorisation for use of pesticide products containing the three neonicotinoids on outdoor crops in 2018, in line with the EU decision. Since then, sugar beet growers have been adjusting to new conditions. In 2019 and in 2021, the virus threat was low and the crop was not significantly impacted. However, 2020 saw severe damage, with up to 24% of the national crop being lost. Imports were needed to enable British Sugar to honour its contracts.

    The emergency authorisation has been issued with a strict threshold for use, so that Cruiser SB will be used only if there is a likely danger to the sugar beet crop. This year, the threshold has been set at a predicted virus incidence of 63% or above, as forecast by an independent model developed by Rothamsted Research. That increase reflects our improving understanding of the fit between the model used to predict virus incidence and real-world outcomes, and it means that the product is less likely to be used. The aim of the threshold is to ensure that Cruiser SB is used only if there is a likely danger to the sugar beet crop.

    The forecast will be made on 1 March this year. It is only then that we will know for certain whether the seed treatment will be used this year. In 2021, the model predicted that the virus level would not meet the threshold, so the seed treatment was not used.

    Samantha Dixon

    On 1 March, will the decision be the Minister’s or will it rest with others, and if so, who?

    Mark Spencer

    The decision will not be made by Ministers; the decision will be set by a threshold. Rothamsted Research has set that threshold and that model, and it will take into account weather patterns and levels of aphids and virus within the environment. The decision will be made based on that model, so I will not be involved in that decision, nor will any other Minister.

    Members will be aware of the strict conditions of use that have been set as requirements for emergency authorisation. If that threshold is met and if neonicotinoid- treated seeds are planted, conditions will be put in place to mitigate risk to the environment, including to pollinators. The conditions include the prohibition of any crop that flowers before harvest being planted in the same field within 32 months of a treated sugar beet crop and compliance with a stewardship scheme, which requires monitoring to be performed to determine the levels of neonicotinoids in the environment. Full details of the key conditions of use have been published on gov.uk.

    Daniel Zeichner

    Will the Minister tell us whether there has been any assessment of the success of the mitigation measures adopted in previous years?

    Mark Spencer

    We take into account all of that data when making these decisions. We take the best advice from the best scientists and make these decisions on their advice. My decision was informed by the advice of the Health and Safety Executive and by the views of the UK expert committee on pesticides and DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser on the scientific evidence. I also considered economic issues, informed by analysis from DEFRA economists.

    Looking to the future, we do not wish to see the temporary use of neonicotinoids continue indefinitely. The development of alternative and sustainable approaches to protect sugar beet crops from these viruses is paramount. That includes the development of resistant plant varieties, measures to improve crop hygiene and husbandry, and alternative pesticides. British Sugar and the British Beet Research Organisation are undertaking a programme of work to develop these alternatives, which include yellows virus-specific integrated pest management techniques. The Government are closely monitoring the progress of that.

    Caroline Lucas

    The Minister will know that, since 1970, the UK has lost 50% or more of our insects. Whatever he is saying to us this morning, I do not think he is saying that risk is completely absent; he is balancing risks. Where does the precautionary principle come into his analysis and assessment, given that the risks that we face are so huge? Even if he thinks that the risk is small, none the less, if it happens and there is yet more of a collapse of our bee populations, we are in deep trouble.

    Mark Spencer

    That is one of the reasons why we have introduced the new environmental land management schemes, whose purpose is to change the way farmers grow crops and make them adopt those practices. We recognise how important bees are, and we want to work with farmers to improve the conditions for pollinators. We want to work with nature, rather than against it.

    As hon. Members know, we continue our work on the agricultural transition, and we are repurposing the land-based subsidies we inherited from the EU. The hon. Lady makes the point that they did little for the environment and little for farmers. We will now have a new, ambitious system that rewards farmers and land managers for their role as environmental stewards, and that starts with the sustainable farming incentive.

    Caroline Lucas

    Will the Minister specifically address the precautionary principle? How did he apply it to the decision he made?

    Mark Spencer

    We have to balance all those factors and all the scientific advice, including the precautionary principle, in coming to this decision. It is not an easy decision to make. We have to consider lots of scientific advice on the risk to pollinators and to the sugar beet crop.

    We have just published our indicative plan for the roll-out of the sustainable farming incentive standards, which includes the introduction of paid integrated pest management actions. That includes paying farmers to carry out an assessment and produce an integrated pest management plan; introduce natural methods of pest management, such as flower-rich grass margins or field strips, or companion cropping; and take steps to move towards insecticide-free farming. That will support farmers to minimise the use of pesticides and will incentivise the uptake of alternative ways to control pests.

    Integrated pest management is at the heart of our approach to support farmers to practise sustainable pest management. We have already commissioned a package of research projects that will enable farmers to access the most effective IPM tools available, and ensure that we understand changing trends in pest threats across the UK.

    As I have outlined, the decision to allow the limited and controlled use of neonicotinoids on a single crop has not been taken lightly and is based on robust scientific assessment. We will continue to work hard to support our farmers and protect and restore our vital pollinator populations.

  • Daniel Zeichner – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    Daniel Zeichner – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    The speech made by Daniel Zeichner, the Labour MP for Cambridge, at Westminster Hall, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I am grateful, as ever, to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for securing yet another debate on this important topic, and for drawing attention to the attached petitions. As ever, his introduction was full and thorough, and I will echo many of his points.

    I commend other Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) hit the nail on the head in highlighting the contradiction between this decision and the Government’s wider aspirations. I very much enjoyed the account from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on the work done by Flourish, as well as hearing about the urban bee corridors that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned. A lot is being done on that in many places, including in my city of Cambridge, where Cambridge City Council is doing important work on it.

    I was very pleased to hear the first Westminster Hall contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon). I must tell her that this is not an entirely typical Westminster Hall debate, because we did not hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I am sure that he will not mind me saying that—but we normally do. My hon. Friend made important points about run-off, which must be taken seriously.

    So here we are again, Minister—last week, he was a great advocate of following scientific advice, but this week, it is all different. As many here have pointed out, the Government’s decision to issue an emergency authorisation to allow for the use of Cruiser SB—which contains thiamethoxam, a type of neonicotinoid—on sugar beet goes against the advice from the Government’s expert committee on pesticides and the Health and Safety Executive.

    While the UK Government turn against the science, it is ironic that that comes just days after the European Court of Justice ruled that authorising derogations for the use of banned neonicotinoids was prohibited, stopping further applications for emergency use. That means that we are now an outrider, with lower standards than our neighbours. That is not a place that we should be, and it is not a place that Labour would be, because, for us, pollinator health is not negotiable. I said that last year and the year before, and it was as true then as it is now.

    People will look back and ask why on earth this Conservative Government were so slow to act on the damage that is being done. Never mind worthy targets, never mind environmental improvement plans—this decision has been taken here and now. The attack on nature continues for as long as the Conservatives remain in power.

    This is a long-standing debate and, as colleagues have pointed out, the Government have ignored the advice of the panel for three years in a row—they have ignored the science and the advice of the expert committee for three years. We have heard the advice, but I will repeat it: the committee advised against authorising a derogation on Cruiser SB because

    “potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators outweigh the likely benefits.”

    Last week, the Minister said that he believed in science and supported the work of experts, but now that advice is being ignored. I simply ask: why, Minister? I suspect that part of his answer may be the rules that go alongside the use of the Cruiser SB neonicotinoid-treated seeds. A period of time has been specified that must elapse before flowering crops can be planted in the same field. Herbicides must also be used to remove weeds in the field to reduce the exposure of pollinators to insecticides—I am afraid that that provision also adversely impacts pollinators through the reduction of available flowers, but we understand the goal to reduce overall potential risk.

    It will probably be said that the threshold that will allow for its use has been increased this year, from 19% to 63%.We all hope that that threshold will not be reached—it was not the year before last. The truth is, however, that we genuinely do not know whether that will happen or not; it will depend on the weather.

    But we do know for sure that neonicotinoids are extremely harmful to the environment. They affect the nervous system of bees and other insects, leading to their death. I cannot resist repeating what everyone else has said about the 1.25 billion honeybees that can potentially be killed by one teaspoon of the chemical. We all know how critical bees are for pollinating crops. As the brief provided by the all-party parliamentary group on the environment pointed out, wild bees are responsible for pollinating between 85% and 95% of the UK’s insect-pollinated crops. We also know that run-off into waterways and leaching into the soil and nearby wildflowers is a real threat, as the Bumblebee Conservation Trust highlighted in its brief on the impact not just on bumblebees, but on other animals and aquatic life.

    We also understand the wider context, which is very difficult. Virus yellow is a cause of significant yield losses. The National Farmers Union reports that, for some, it is up to 50%. The most complex and serious is that spread by the peach potato aphid, and it is hard to control. In 2020, the sector lost 40% of the national sugar beet crop, bringing down the five-year average yield by 25%.

    Frankly, the weather over the past few months has been really difficult. We all remember the searing heat from last summer—the drought—that hit particularly hard in key beet areas along the A14 and around Bury St Edmunds. And then, just before Christmas, there was a very harsh frost followed immediately by a big temperature rise, resulting in a rapid, rotting thaw. It has been really difficult, and that has been added to by a new pest, the beet moth, which seems to be attracted from Europe by the warmer temperatures here.

    The overall result is that we are short of beet sugar this year, with beet having to be imported by the processor. That is tough on the growers, tough on the processor and adds more costs up the supply chain. With beet becoming a less attractive prospect to many growers, British Sugar already had to pay more to encourage people back into production. None of that is easy, and there are consequences and costs to any decision. I appreciate that, for farmers, it too often feels as though the tools that they need for the job are being systematically taken away. That is very difficult, because nature does not compromise.

    We have to look at alternatives, as British Sugar and the NFU acknowledge in their helpful briefings. There are high hopes for varieties resistant to virus yellows and there is potential for the use of gene editing to secure that resistance. I hope that the Government follow our advice on the regulatory structures needed to make that happen. I am told that there is already a variety resistant to two virus yellow strains, but it is expensive and there is a yield penalty. I am also told that yield protection insurance is available, but again, that incurs more costs. Those are difficult decisions.

    There are things that we can do, some of which have been outlined by other Members. We can develop non-chemical approaches, such as boosting beneficial insects, cover crops, better rotation and maintaining good farm hygiene. There is evidence that some farms have had success by adopting such measures. We should move much more quickly on adopting integrated pest-management systems. Ironically, as has been explained, that was part of the sustainable farming incentive package that the Government announced last week, and we welcome that. So I say to the Minister: be bold on that, listen to the scientists and get away from falling back on neonicotinoids, which we know do so much harm.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    The speech made by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I am pleased to participate in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for comprehensively setting out the issue before us—the use of bee-killing pesticides in our agriculture.

    The issue matters very much to my constituents, and I know it matters to constituents across the UK, because we all receive large amounts of correspondence about it. The reason for that concern is that bees play a crucial part in our ecosystem; we must do all we can to protect them from the detrimental impacts of environmental alterations and climate change.

    The International Union for Conservation of Nature list shows that as many as 24% of Europe’s bumble bee species are now threatened with extinction, despite being worth a staggering £690 million per year to the UK economy. Bees are vital to our agriculture. One out of every three mouthfuls of food we eat exists because of pollination. Bees pollinate an array of crops, including apples, peas, courgettes, pumpkins, tomatoes, strawberries and raspberries. If we lose bees and other pollinators, growing many types of food would be extremely challenging. Our diets would suffer tremendously. The variety of food available would diminish and the cost of certain products would surge. Many argue that pollination provides one of the clearest examples of how our disregard for the health of the environment threatens our very survival.

    Since 1900, the UK has lost 13 species of bee, and a further 35 are considered to be under threat of extinction, not least because of toxic pesticides, which we are talking about today, and climate change. No species of bee is protected by law. The contribution of honey bees to nature and food products is significant. As we have heard from a number of Members, up to three quarters of crop species are pollinated by bees and other pollinators, so bees are the ultimate symbol of a healthy environment in terms of our climate, our food security and our natural world. Bees could not be a more important factor in those areas.

    When we look at what is happening in Scotland and what is happening in England, this is again a tale of two Governments. The Scottish Government launched its “Pollinator Strategy for Scotland 2017-2027” to make Scotland a more pollinator-friendly and sustainable place by protecting indigenous bee and butterfly populations. The strategy sets out how to make Scotland a place where pollinators can thrive and how those objectives can be achieved. Importantly, it raises public awareness about the value of Scotland’s pollinating insects and the regulation of non-native species.

    While that is going on, we have a UK Government who, as we have heard today, have no real sense of urgency about this important matter. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport pointed out that the UK Government have retained the pesticide, along with other neonicotinoids, banned in the EU in 2013, using the EU temporary emergency exemption. Measures in the EU to protect pollinators, including bees, are in place, but the UK opted out of them. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who is no longer in his place, about the impact of glyphosate and the need to address that issue.

    For the third year in a row, the Government have authorised the continued use of thiamethoxam—I hope I pronounced that properly. The European Court has ruled against its emergency use, because it is known to be lethal to bees, wasps and other pollinators. It poses a danger not just to wild bee colonies, but to humans, as it is linked to a wide range of health challenges.

    It was not so long ago that the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), declared:

    “We cannot afford to put our pollinator populations at risk”—

    yet here we are. Members have reminded us that one teaspoon of pesticide is enough to kill 1.25 billion bees. The sensible way forward, in the face of the facts that we have heard today, is surely a total ban on bee-killing pesticides.

    Many people, including SNP Members, encouraged the UK Government to make the Environment Act 2021 stronger by following Scotland’s example in areas such as air pollution, outlawing harmful pesticides and independent oversight of environmental protection, but sadly, that was to no avail. The reality is that legal requirements set out in the Act to halt species decline by 2030 will be as written on water if the UK Government do not step up and protect England’s natural environment and preserve its biodiversity. This matters very much in Scotland, even though it is a matter for the UK Government, because bees do not recognise borders, so bees across the rest of the UK are potentially harmed by what is going on.

    Margaret Ferrier

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Patricia Gibson

    I will just finish this point. It is important that the Government prioritise the environment and protect farmers in international deals, because improving trade is one thing, but our natural environment must not be jeopardised by poisonous chemicals that result in the death of invaluable pollinators. There must be no regression on environmental standards and protections. I urge the Minister to follow the direction and example of both the Scottish Government and the EU in banning pesticides and protecting pollinators. During the Brexit debate, many of us warned of a divergence in standards between the UK and the EU over time, leading to—as everybody feared—the lowering of standards in the UK over a range of areas. We were told that that would not happen, that it was nonsense and that the UK would be liberated to make even greater progress, but today we see our fears about protecting bees coming true.

    Margaret Ferrier

    As the hon. Member mentioned, we have some good initiatives in Scotland for bee protection, such as the Cambuslang apiary project in my constituency. Does she agree that the project does incredible conservation work for bee pollination and populations?

    Patricia Gibson

    Absolutely. Local initiatives like that must be applauded and supported, but we need a lead from the UK Government on the level of pesticides and pesticide use, so that we can support the very important work that bees do on our behalf, which many of us probably take for granted.

    That brings me beautifully to my next point because, although many of us might take the work that bees do for granted, we have to remember the impact that they have on our crop production. We do not want to find ourselves in future in the same position as some fruit farmers in China, where wild bees have been eradicated by excessive pesticide use and the lack of natural habitats. That has forced farmers to hand-pollinate their trees, carrying pots and paintbrushes to individually pollinate every flower. It is simply not possible to hand-pollinate every crop that we want, but it shows the kind of nightmare scenario that we could end up in, and the impact that that would have on the food that we eat and on our survival.

    This issue becomes more pressing with every passing day, as our bee numbers continue to diminish. I hope, when the Minister gets to his feet, that he will agree that it is indeed time for his Government to get busy and start saving bees, and to ban noenicitinoid pesticides before it is too late. As he has heard today, his Government need to follow the signs and remember bees and the Government’s environment improvement plan. Let me end by saying: the Government need to get themselves into a hive of activity and save our bees.

  • Samantha Dixon – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    Samantha Dixon – 2023 Speech on Bee-killing Pesticides in Agriculture

    The speech made by Samantha Dixon, the Labour MP for City of Chester, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing this important debate—my first in Westminster Hall.

    As Members on both sides of the Chamber have mentioned, it is well known that neonicotinoid pesticides can be very harmful to a wide range of insects and invertebrates, including, of course, our beloved bees. They are essential to the future of our planet, to the pollination of our crops and to our rich tapestry of biodiversity, yet in the UK, as we have heard, 13 bee species are extinct and one in 10 of Europe’s wild bee species are under threat.

    The Government’s announcement of an exemption to the ban on neonicotinoids to treat sugar beet in England was ill-judged and wrong. I am concerned that the Government went against the advice of their own expert scientific advisers. Our understanding is that the use of neonicotinoids is mainly associated with sugar beet production in the east of England, but it is important to note that the chemicals can be washed into watercourses and can work their way into the food chain. As with most things in nature, there are always the ripple effects of consequences, chain reactions and things interlinked with one another. There is also a serious concern that the exemption for sugar beets will simply open the floodgate to the wider use of harmful pesticides.

    Neonics can have consequences well beyond their site of application and, if used more widely, can put in danger vital efforts to recover threatened native species, including in my own constituency, where Chester Zoo is working hard with partners to create new habitats that encourage bees and other pollinators as part of its nature-recovery corridor in Cheshire. Similarly, the impact would be felt across the north-west region, where the zoo is assisting with the introduction of locally extinct species, such as the large heath butterfly.

    I back our farmers, and I am concerned that sugar beet farmers are experiencing a difficult time. However, lifting the ban is not the answer. We must find a science-led way forward that protects our bees and safeguards our future biodiversity, but that also includes better support for the farming sector. In the middle of a climate and nature emergency, there should not be any ifs or buts when it comes to the health of bees. We must be prepared to make tough calls to address the ecological crisis and showcase environmental best practice, rather than allowing more bees and pollinators to be killed by neonics.

    I lend my support to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for parliamentary approval for any future use of bee-killing pesticides. Will the Minister comment on the impact the exemptions to the ban have had since its introduction and on the expected impact in the next few years? More importantly, will he admit that any lifting of the ban is a huge mistake and that the use of such harmful pesticides should be banned for good, especially in the light of the environmental challenges we face?